Welsh v. Barnhart

Fifth Circuit

Welsh v. Barnhart

101 F. App'x 946

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 7, 2004

Docket03-31110

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 F. App'x 946 (Welsh v. Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Welsh v. Barnhart, 101 F. App'x 946 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Shelma Welsh appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. Welsh argues that the Commissioner used the wrong legal standard to reject her claim that her anxiety was disabling. This argument is unavailing. Our review of the record shows that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who considered Welsh’s application applied the correct standard. See Jones v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 524, 527 n. 1 (5th Cir.1987).

Welsh also argues that the ALJ erred by not ordering a consultative examination in relation to her alleged mental impairment. Again, our review of the record belies this assertion. Welsh’s references to her mental impairment amount to isolated comments that were insufficient to trigger the ALJ’s duty to order a consultative examination. See Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 566 (5th Cir.1995). Moreover, she has failed to establish any prejudice from this asserted error. See Brock v. Chater, 84 F.3d 726, 728 (5th Cir.1996).

Welsh’s argument that the district court erred in concluding that it could not consider evidence presented to the Appeals Council likewise lacks merit. We need not decide this novel issue because the disputed evidence would not change the outcome of this appeal even if it were considered. See Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267, 274 n. 3 (5th Cir.2002).

Finally, Welsh’s argument that the ALJ erred by rejecting a prior classification of her past work lacks merit. Welsh has not shown that the ALJ who considered her current application for benefits erred by classifying her prior work as a Pantry Goods Worker.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Shelma Welsh appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. Welsh argues that the Commissioner used the wrong legal standard to reject her claim that her anxiety was disabling. This argument is unavailing. Our review of the record shows that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who considered Welsh’s application applied the correct standard. See Jones v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 524, 527 n. 1 (5th Cir.1987).

Welsh also argues that the ALJ erred by not ordering a consultative examination in relation to her alleged mental impairment. Again, our review of the record belies this assertion. Welsh’s references to her mental impairment amount to isolated comments that were insufficient to trigger the ALJ’s duty to order a consultative examination. See Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 566 (5th Cir.1995). Moreover, she has failed to establish any prejudice from this asserted error. See Brock v. Chater, 84 F.3d 726, 728 (5th Cir.1996).

Welsh’s argument that the district court erred in concluding that it could not consider evidence presented to the Appeals Council likewise lacks merit. We need not decide this novel issue because the disputed evidence would not change the outcome of this appeal even if it were considered. See Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267, 274 n. 3 (5th Cir.2002).

Finally, Welsh’s argument that the ALJ erred by rejecting a prior classification of her past work lacks merit. Welsh has not shown that the ALJ who considered her current application for benefits erred by classifying her prior work as a Pantry Goods Worker.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 F. App'x 946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welsh-v-barnhart-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack